Well, now that most of you are completely mystified, let me first assure you
that we will unravel this "mystery", that being how software specifications (or
any engineering specifications for that matter) have any relationship whatsoever
with government.

I realize some of you already know what this is about, so I will ask you to bear
with me for the time being. We may yet make a new "connection" for you - where
government and specifications are revealed in a new light.

The Latin phrase "Verba volent, scripta manent" means "Words fly away, writings
stay behind." Why is this phrase significant in the context of software
specifications? Well, let us just say that without a written software
specification - the product is undefined and remains solely in the minds of the
visionaries who keep those designs private, within the confines of their own
skulls. Under such a system, it is nearly impossible for software developers who
implement these un-written designs – to get them right.

Likewise, without a Constitution - based on our Declaration of Independence -
our nation has no specification for its form of government.

So it is with government. If no written "specification" (body of law in this
case) exists, only the rulers comprehend the reasoning behind their dictates.
When a software development or any other kind of engineering project - or a
country - is run by word of mouth, we have the rule of a few - an oligarchy - by
dictate, by fiat. The rulers under such a system, rule by fiat, may operate
government according to any "design" they wish, whether it comports with natural
law or mere whim.

This is what is known as the rule of men (wo-men as well...) and constitutes
what is known as "democracy/Democracy". That is, rule by the voice of the mob -
without constraint by any even semi-permanent written framework that has been
thought out by studied minds who have gleaned the lessons of history and
discovered how free nations are unmade and free people enslaved.

Our government was originally specified to serve the purpose of protecting
liberty on an individual basis, applying just the right amount of "force" to
ensure that individuals who violate others' rights - are restrained. Our
founding fathers codified this form of government into a specification which is
comprised of not only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (of
which the Articles of Amendment - Bill of Rights are a part...), but many other
writings as well, including both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist
Papers. They understood the phrase "panem et circenses" and how panem et
circenses is actually a tactic to enslave a population. They also understood
that democracy was the worst of all forms of government because it always leads
to an oligarchy, the rule of a few men. The founding fathers understood that
when you give rule of law over to men, eventually, only a few dominant men would
constitute the body of law. Thus they were specific about the dangers of
democracy. James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams understood this.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, astutely observed,
“Democracies, have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever
been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and
have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their
death.”

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" (Franklin)

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or
monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and
murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John
Adams

The founders aren't/weren't the only ones to understand the difference between
Constitutional Rule of Law and rule of law by fiat, by dictate. That word,
"dictate" is key, here. To refresh your memory:

Main Entry: 1dic·tate Pronunciation: \ˈdik-ˌtāt, dik-ˈ\ Function: verb Inflected
Form(s): dic·tat·ed; dic·tat·ing Etymology: Latin dictatus, past participle of
dictare to assert, dictate, frequentative of dicere to say — more at diction
Date: 1581
intransitive verb1: to give dictation2: to speak or act domineeringly :
prescribetransitive verb1: to speak or read for a person to transcribe or for a
machine to record2 a: to issue as an order b: to impose, pronounce, or specify
authoritatively c: to require or determine necessarily <injuries dictated the
choice of players>

Thomas Paine and Frederick Bastiat also understood the difference between a
democracy and a republic, as did the following, who briefly quoted:

"Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors." — Ralph Waldo
Emerson

"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by
Jackasses." Mencken

"Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage." Mencken, also

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove
that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are
right... The United States has never developed an aristocracy really
disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a
record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds." Mencken - he was on a
"roll"

The other person of note who understood "democracy" and how democracy (rule of
the mob) is engineered to give way to rule by men - was Vladimir Ilich Lenin who
said, "Democracy is the most direct route to communism". Thus democracy is the
most direct route to dictatorship under a few men who hold absolute power over a
nation, controlling the flow of information in that nation. They hold the
specification for their “government” inside their own rotten skulls and rule
with power, not reason. Reason can be codified, it can be written down for all
to see so that others can determine if its author is sane, if its author is in
tune with natural law, in touch with a reality that includes the rights of
others.

The point to note is that rule of men - is conducted by voice, by dictate.
Constitutional Rule of Law - is carried out through a series and a system of
checks and balances from a written body of law - a specification which was
designed to grant government only enough power to preserve individual liberty,
but not enough to become tyrannical. It is because we the people have long since
abdicated our responsibility to keep government in check that we are now looking
down the barrel of the North American Union - the spawn of NAFTA, why we have
central banking (a mechanism to transfer wealth from the populace to the
elites…) all of which (plus much, much more) were put in place by powers not
beholden to our Constitution, the specification for our form of government -
which used to be a Constitutional Republic.

In case you haven't noticed, that is NOT what we have now. We now have only the
illusion of security with the illusion of liberty because we have let our
government devolve into democracy many decades ago and the oligarchs are now in
place, in full control of our lives, our economy, our health and welfare because
we let ourselves be deceived and distracted away from our duty as citizens, the
primary one being the requirement that we stay "connected" to the specification
for our form of government.

An example of this is the use of the previously-mentioned "panem et circenses"
that the Romans were quite familiar with when they destroyed their republic with
the help of the citizenry - who were led to believe they should welcome
democracy - which the elites then used to install their oligarchy. Emperor
Commodus was one insane incestuously-conceived royal bastard outcome of this
oligarchy - his very name serving as the basis of the expression "our country is being flushed
down the commode".

"Panem et circenses" literally means "bread and circuses" - which the Romans
employed under the valid theory that if you keep a population well-fed and
entertained, they won't be interested in, nor will they interfere in the affairs
of state - and will give up their liberties. So, the application of "panem et
circenses" is intended to enslave a population by separating us from the
SPECIFICATION for our intended form of government, keeping it out of our hands,
out of our classrooms and out of our courts so that it eventually fades from our
minds. The point is that if a
people are no longer interested in their own government and they fail to read
the specification for the government under which they live, they are no longer
qualified to hold the title "citizen". Instead, they are mere peasants who
are ruled by people who ARE interested in the affairs of state. In the
case of the American peasant, they become part of the problem of tyranny,
carried out through the dictates of those who DO understand the founding
documents content - and who choose either to ignore that content or to actively
subvert it - as is happening on a global scale, today. Peasants or
"sheeple" are the dupes of traitors, those who work against self-government, the
form specified in our founding documents. Citizens, unlike the common
peasantry - take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to see that the "Laws of the Union" are
executed. They uphold and defend the Constitution, even in the face of an
enemy who has overwhelming force - the power of the state - on his side.

Commodus

This brings us to the crux of the matter, which is the survival of Western
Civilization, the survival of the first world in the midst of jungle, that
“shining city on a hill” so often spoken of in years past.
The difference between the first world and the third world – is the ability to
do engineering. That’s it. The whole thing. There’s really nothing more to it –
other than the details of that statement, which are many.

The ability to codify reason, to present it to the people who will be governed
by it (to check for sanity, for comportment with natural law and reality) is the
ability to create abstract barriers that are more than mere parchment, but
constitute the foundations of the epitome of civilization where the rule of law
is agreed to by all such that all are protected under the law. Just because a
barrier is abstract – doesn’t mean it isn’t valid and less than real. The
statement, “[The Constitution] is just a God-damned piece of paper” couldn’t be
more wrong and more disconnected from reality just because it contains ideas
that lie beyond the grasp of some men to understand it. Yet, this statement has
been spoken by many and carried out by many more who have the sense not to speak
it aloud but who will nevertheless intentionally ignore or even actively subvert the American
codification/specification of reason/government in favor of some other form.

One definition of Hell is "the impossibility of reason". Without a basis
in a set of immutable, constant principles and truths, there is no basis for
reason. Therefore, when we abandon the very principles upon which this
nation was founded, we have thrown out all logic, all reasoning for the very
being of our nation and we condemn ourselves to statist hell, for the
foundations of our country are those that guarantee individual freedom, they are
the principles of liberty - Anonymous

So, to briefly summarize, we have the following opposing systems at work either
for or against our free state:

Like a software development project without a well-written specification, our
nation does not function the way the “visionaries”, the stakeholders intended
because we do not follow the “specification” for our nation - whether through
apathy or intentional duplicity by a domestic enemy. It was extremely
well thought-out and written with plenty of supporting documentation, but our
current leaders have chosen to either ignore or undermine that set of “models” which even included a
provision for scrapping the whole "project", should the “project leaders” get out
of hand and start dictating functions that would work at cross-purposes to the
“product”.

Our kakistocrats have chosen to either ignore or purposely nullify the justification for our form of
government, how it is to be used and by whom, and for what purposes and also how
it is to be implemented. Thus, they have also chosen to operate outside the
specification (outside the law), ignoring reason, usurping power and taking us
all down the path to perfidy with them. They are traitors to our nation because
they refuse to follow Constitutional Rule of Law and instead opt for democracy
and communist dictatorship where we all become mere slaves – especially to the
system of centralized, fractional reserve banking that was created in
conjunction with the income tax, a system that Karl Marx would’ve been proud of.
(Actually, he described it as his “perfect system” along with Frederick Engels
in “The Communist Manifesto”)

Fortunately, there is one man among all the current presidential candidates, who
understands the distinctions between Words and Writings, Power and Codified
Reason and all the other important distinctions that enable us to choose between
third world existence and first world peace and prosperity. That man’s name is
Ron Paul.

More importantly, people are waking up to his message that under our
Constitution - which was designed to guarantee individual liberty by limiting
government which is continually promoted and expanded by those who would rule us
– we can regain our freedom. He understands the original purpose and intent of
our founding documents and the wisdom of those men who codified them for each
and every one of us citizens to keep, comprehend and hold so that we remain in
charge of our own destiny rather than living in fear under some globalist,
supra-national, extra-constitutional group of third-worlders who live on the
sweat and toil of slaves. Ron Paul “gets it”, even if you don’t.

I also ‘get it”, both in terms of governance and software engineering. That’s
because I’ve read “the spec” on how to write “specs”.

If you want Liberty under an American form of government, hire a man who can
read, who can read the spec and can also comprehend it. That’s my advice.

I know, I know. He's a Republican. But, you're voting for the candidate, not the
party. That is to say, vote for him in spite of the fact he's registered under
one of the two big "shell-game" parties, regardless. In this particular case,
you should consider whether the candidate is a true American, instead of some
globalist plant, which describes everyone else running for POTUS. This is a RARE
opportunity to put an American in the White House.

In case you haven't heard about the other candidates, you need to do your
research. Almost to a last one, they are beholden to the predominant Round Table
Group known as the Council on Foreign Relations. The Round Table Groups were
established by Cecil Rhodes - whose purpose in life was to resurrect the British
Empire, specifically re-capturing the "colonies" of the United States of America
as part of the Empire once again. The Brits have never stopped this campaign,
even on the day of their surrender when Cornwallis surrendered to George
Washington.

The CFR is about as American as Vodka and Caviar - and Britain ain't socialist,
right?!